On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:16:43 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:10:23 +0100
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > As detailed before, -* has a different meaning defined by policy; if
> > we want to see that changed it should be brought up for a vote,
> > otherwise its usage in discussions
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:10:23 +0100
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> As detailed before, -* has a different meaning defined by policy; if
> we want to see that changed it should be brought up for a vote,
> otherwise its usage in discussions like these seems to suggest to
> break an existing policy. So, I read
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:31:28 +
"Steven J. Long" wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 "Steven J. Long" wrote:
> >
> > > > > Much better for the arch in question to field the bug, than
> > > > > tell the user there is no problem, and we don't care. That
> >
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 "Steven J. Long" wrote:
>
> > > > Much better for the arch in question to field the bug, than tell
> > > > the user there is no problem, and we don't care. That way you can
> > > > get the user involved in stabilisation and AT via that
On 12 February 2014 07:04, Samuli Suominen wrote:
[...]
>
> It's sad that people don't follow common sense (which happens to be the
> GNOME highlights)
> and that everything must be turned into a policy of somesort so people
> get it.
>
[...]
>
> Just make the gnome gtk3 policy the guideline if yo
